[Prefatory Note: Below is the text of a report co-authored by Virginia Tilley and myself, commissioned by the UN Economic and Social Commission for West Asia (ESCWA) that examines the argument for regarding Israel as an ‘apartheid state’ with respect to the whole of the Palestinian people, that is, not only those Palestinians living under occupation, but also those living as residents of Jerusalem, those living as a minority in Israel, and those enduring refugee camps and involuntary exile. The report concludes that Israel is guilty of the continuing crime of apartheid as it is defined in the 1973 Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. The report reviews the evidence for such a finding, and offers recommendation for acting upon such a conclusion within the United Nations, by national governments, and by civil society. Upon the release of the report on March 15, 2017…

44 thoughts on “UN Sponsored Report on Israel’s Responsibility for Apartheid in Relation to the Palestinian People”

Please read the tremendously important, serious and historic document, save it to your files, and disseminate as widely as possible. By doing so efficiently, effectively and quickly at this extremely dangerous point in human history, one can quite possibly make the difference in preventing the unimaginable: a third World War, and the nuclear destruction of life on Earth.

Thank you.

May readers find the following discussion on the Israel-Palestine issue insightful, instructive and beneficial. Take note, especially, of the persistent denial of requests for and absence of any refutation of specific legal text in Professor Tilley and Professor Falk’s >27,000 word document.

Falk’s lying diatribe has nothing to do with “World War III, and the nuclear destruction of life on Earth.”
It has everything to do with 2 “has been” academics that in their waning days of whining at the last remnants of the anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli (and by extension, anti-Christian and other Israel minorities) UN and related organizations finally falling out of fashion with even the lowest common denominator of the planet.

Over 2000 years whole nations have come and then faded away in their attempt to vilify and destroy us. Well, the actual facts are here for all to see and history and the prophetic facts of the Torah stand clear and bold. Am Yisrael Hai!!

The sick and dying LEFT is drowning in its own sputum, unable to stand up and EVER argue the case against Israel on the merits. All they can do is shut you down, ignore you, boycott you, conduct acts of terror and lie, lie and lie (Durban, Geneva, Iran) again. The mere fact that they refuse honest debate is proof enough they have no case and are loathsome of any legitimate arena of their peers. This “document” is proof of that.

Aaron,
One could conclude that the “has been” academics, Professor Tilley and Professor Falk, have INITIATED an honest debate, which defeats the logic used asserting they refuse same debate. After writing the professors’ efforts are a form of “whining” at organizations on the decline, with “even the lowest common denominator of the planet”, it would be appreciated if an elaboration were provided, particularly related to Christ’s words “What you do for the least of these, you do for me.” It seems clear that “the case” isn’t against Israel, but against apartheid conditions extant, and that the over-25,000 word document is an argument against it.

Don’t expect Julie Webb-Pullman to state the truth. Her whole diatribe is one lie after another.

Lie #1: “UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres’s first big challenge has seen him falter, and fall”. Guterres has neither faltered nor fallen. If anything he has risen like a phoenix from the ashes, standing up against the bullying of the Arab states and non-aligned that for years been coerced by petro dollars and other bribes to vote against Israel.

Lie #2: “..if the UN is to retain any semblance of independence, impartiality and integrity.” The UN was rarely independent, impartial or with integrity. One of those rare occasions was in 1947 where they voted in favour of creating a Jewish State (not an Arab state) and a separate Arab state (not a Jewish State). The Jews accepted. The Arabs did not. After Israel declared independence (by the UN’s right to) in 1948, the Arab states attacked Israel…. and they lost. This newly independent “Palestinian” country changed it’s name to Israel as what it’s original was for thousands of years. The provinces of Judea and Samaria were lost in the cease-fire line to Jordan however was still part of the original mandate that was granted to the Jewish people….legally as in INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Lie #3: “..two highly qualified, experienced and respected scholars: Richard Falk, Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, internationally recognized as one of the world’s finest, and Virginia Tilley, Professor of Political Science at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale.” They are hardly qualified, hardly experienced and hardly respected.. except by despotic regimes, purveyors of anti-Semitic porn and like minded endorsers of terrorist regimes such as Hamas and Iran. Even the PA tried to get Falk expelled from the UN for his support of Hamas. Tilley is not much better. She promotes the destruction of Israel in her “one state solution” essay and writings would rather see the Jews swallowed in a sea of Arab interlopers then 20 Arab countries take care of their own expats who’s settlements and occupations are visible throughout the Land of Israel especially during the last 120 years.

Lie #4: “The 80+ UN resolutions Israel is currently in breach of were passed simply and solely because Israel REPEATEDLY BREAKS INTERNATIONAL LAW.” Of course this lie has become practically universal by the Jew hating Israel bashers. They use this general term yet never state the statute or law that Israel has broken. UN resolutions are not laws. They are stated opinions by member states who by vote of majority in their own fiefdom of states aligned by agenda or coercion, gang up on Israel.

Lie #5: “These principles are that human rights are universal and inalienable; indivisible; interdependent and interrelated. (note to SG – Palestinians should have them too.)”.

Palestinians? Who are they? The Palestinians of 70 CE? 1929? 1936? 1947? 1948? 1964? 1967? 2002? It seems there are different Palestinian flavours for every occasion or political need. The only REAL Palestinians are the Jews who have a deed of sale, the purchase of the Tomb of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs from time immemorial. The Arabs who came later are missing the most important document…their own deed of sale enshrined not only in the Bible, not only in the annals of history but even in the Koran itself. The current “State” of Jordan is the only homeland for the current day Arab Palestinians or of course any of the other Arab states that refuse to give them citizenship.

She, Falk and Tilley are all cut from the same cloth… finish the job that the Romans, Persians, Greeks, Crusaders, Mameluke’s, Nazi’s and Muslim hordes failed to do. The only difference is they use the pen instead of the sword. I have news for them…. history is on the side of the Jews. Just wait and see.

Aaron,
If you’re willing, let’s see if we can focus on major points relevant to the Israel-Palestine issue for the people in the region’s, our and readers’ benefit.

A.) In your comments you wrote “bullying of the Arab states and non-aligned that for years been coerced by petro dollars and other bribes to vote against Israel.” Can you please elaborate on who is doing the coercing, who is doing the bribing, and why they are doing it.

B.) Then, “The UN was rarely independent, impartial or with integrity. One of those rare occasions was in 1947 where they voted in favour of creating a Jewish State (not an Arab state) and a separate Arab state (not a Jewish State). The Jews accepted. The Arabs did not.” Here in the year 2017 many have seen the maps over the years from 1948 clearly showing larger and larger Israeli control of land and lesser and lesser land controlled by Palestinians. Are those maps accurate or not? If so, isn’t it reasonable for people to conclude grave injustice has occurred? We could mention 2014″s “Operation Protective Edge” but that would be a dead end, as recently you ignored my request for statistics on the number of killed and injured Palestinians compared to Israelis, along with the dollar amount of property damage to Palestinian holding compared to Israeli.

C.) Please elaborate on the logical (we’d settle for spiritual) processes and/or facts used to jump to the conclusion that co-writer of the report, Professor Virginia Tilley, promotes the “destruction of Israel”, and she wishes to “see the Jews swallowed in a sea of Arab interlopers (invaders).”

D.) Do you have any regrets or feel any remorse for writing in your comments the terms “gang up on Israel” or “Jew hating Israel bashers”? If not, why are there efforts being made to gang up on Israel, and what in your view causes people to become haters of Jews and bashers of Israel?

You ask some awfully naive questions so it’s hard to know if you’re being entirely serious. When Aaron writes (A) “petro dollars,” that is the answer to your question about who is doing the bribing, namely the Arabs, and the “why” should be obvious. Why (B) do you think that the side who loses a war, i.e, suffers more casualties and more property damage, is in the right? Take a good look at WWII Dresden and Berlin and German casualties in the last campaigns of the war. Did that make Nazi Germany right? (C) Because they are promoting a one-state solution that envisages the “return” of millions of Arabs – the descendants of the original refugees, who are in fact not refugees at all by any legal or historical definition, having been born outside Israel. That is what “swallowed up” means. (D) I think you know the answer but you would like to suggest that it is because of all the terrible things Israel does. You will find the answer to why people become haters of Jews below. Do you also wish to suggest here that it is because of the terrible things Jews do? And why should Aron feel “remorse” or regret – an odd choice of words – for stating what he has shown to be the case.

Fred,
“You ask some awfully naive questions so it’s hard to know if you’re being entirely serious.” That was a classic! Man…

“Why (B) do you think that the side who loses a war, i.e, suffers more casualties and more property damage, is in the right?…” Fred, you might be familiar with the phrase, “waste of words”, but if you aren’t, that statement hits the mark. You are allowed to write the name of the Israeli destruction of Gaza and Palestinian people in Summer 2014 – “Operation Protective Edge”. By the way, Fred, can you comment on the phrase allegedly used by some Israelis for the bi-yearly bombing and destruction of Gaza – that of “mowing the lawn”?

It’s surprising Fred, that you missed responding to the profound transfer of territory on maps over the decades showing a growing, higher acreage and control of land by Israel and decreasing, lesser acreage by Palestinians. You’re not “naive” on the issue – THE ISSUE – of decades-long land taking, illegal settlements, house demolitions, forced evictions, etc. are you Fred?

Comment on the “phrase allegedly used by some Israelis”? Isn’t that a little vague? In any case it isn’t the phrase I would use. What Israel is actually doing is attacking rocket-launching sites implanted by Hamas in residential neighborhoods, in and around schools, playground, hospitals, clinics, mosques and apartment buildings, after warning residents of impending attacks with leaflets, emails and telephone calls though they were and are prevented from evacuating these areas by Hamas itself.

As for the land, it is occupied as the result of a war initiated by Hussein in 1967. The moment the Palestinians are ready to negotiate an end the conflict, the occupation will end. The contours of a settlement are clear to everyone so I will assume that even you know what they are.

Fred,
Please comment on the edit at the end of your article. You posted the article then afterward, in a new comment, wrote the two sentence addendum. For the sake of honest discussion, it was important that we made you aware of that comment edit.

Help me out with my vagueness issue… Have Israeli officials in the past used the term “mowing the lawn”; the response implies the obscene term has been used to describe the intermittent, every other year or so attacks of Palestinians. If “mowing the lawn” has been said as a dark metaphor for those historically significant military operations, how did you feel when learning the obscene metaphor was used, and what would you say personally to the person or persons who said them? Have you ever written a denunciation of the phrase “mowing the lawn”, or another where a high official in the government described Palestinian babies as “little snakes”?

Are you familiar with silk-screened t-shirts showing a pregnant Palestinian woman with the caption “2-for-1”, meaning if the woman is killed…?

What is your opinion of, during “Operation Protective Edge”, Israelis bringing lawn chairs, couches, etc. to high places (hills..) outside Gaza to “watch the show”, as people go to drive-in movie theaters, of bombs exploding inside Gaza – killing and wounding many thousands of Palestinians?

You quote me as saying “Christian haters exist today” as though I am somehow contradicting myself because I had previously written “Are you unaware of what your church is guilty of with regard to the Jews. I said “2000 years,” not “(now).” Why do you put the “now” in parentheses – because you know that I’m not talking about “now.” To which I replied: “Of course there are still Christian Jew haters and Israel haters. It is institutional Christianity that has backed away from it.”
Once again you are either pretending not to understand very plain English or actually have a problem understanding it.

You are presenting these questions of yours as though you are holding some winning card. You are the one who used the words “alleged” and “some Israelis.” Isn’t that vague? Why do you say “alleged”? Don’t you know if it’s true? If you don’t why bring it up? I’ve heard the term from people like yourself though it may well be that some Israeli said it. What does that prove exactly?
No, I’m not familiar with the silk screen shirts but I can imagine they exist. There are certainly some Israelis who think that every Palestinian coming out of the womb is a potential terrorist. Societies are not characterized by what a small minority of its citizens say, think and do and you would have to be a lot more familiar than you are with Israeli society to generalize about it. Don’t you agree? The sitting on a hill and “watching the show” is a perfect example. I saw the same 10-second film clip that you did, if you saw it at all. Not “hills or high places” but one hill or high place and one small group of six or seven Israelis there to enjoy the spectacle of bombs bursting in air just as they were in Tel Aviv watching the incoming rockets in exactly the same way. But you didn’t see that film clip, did you? You give me the impression of someone who is intent on building a case against Israel, You are in fact devoting a tremendous amount of time and energy to getting the dirt on Israel and to tell you the truth I find that neither healthy or normal. Hatred never is.

The Palestinians resort to firing rockets for the same reason that the Arabs attacked Israel in 1948 – because they are unable to reconcile themselves to the existence of a sovereign non-Muslem state in the Middle East. Read the Hamas Charter and you will understand perfectly well why they are firing rockets. And if you wish to continue this dialogue, I will wait until you do read it and tell me what you found there and whether you agree that their ultimate aim is to destroy the State of Israel.

Fred,
The name of this WordPress platform is “The Oneness of Humanity”. If a similar situation as that existent in Israel-Palestine were present in any other nation or region on Earth our response would be the same – in other words, situations where awareness of ultimate reality, the oneness of humanity, is missing.

Now would seem a propitious point to move to the report, past any less important matters, and seek clarification. After noticing Professor Falk had blocked your commentary on his internet platform, we shall allow you to bring your report text specific examples of vilification and slander of the State of Israel. Please proceed in that endeavor, starting with those portions of the report’s text that you wish to highlight. Thank you.

This will be my last reply to you until you read the Hamas Charter and reply to my question. You will also have to reply to my original question, which you have avoided doing until now: Please explain how you went about verifying and evaluating a report concerning a country about which you have no direct knowledge.

Prof. Falk accuses Israel of maintaining an apartheid regime vis-a-vis its own Arab citizens. Arabs eat in the same restaurants as Jews, travel on the same buses and trains, use the same public spaces, are treated in the same hospitals, treat Jews in these hospitals as doctors and nurses, serve as lawyers and judges in Israel’s legal system, teach and study in the universities, serve in the Knesset. This is not the situation for which the term apartheid was coined. What Prof. Falk has done, just as he has done in the past with such words as “Nazi” and “genocide,” is to take a commonly understood term of opprobrium and expand its meaning for the sole purpose of applying it to Israel. This is slander.

Fred,
No spin, Fred… Get to the report text specific examples of vilification and slander of the State of Israel. Get to the legal point. I’m offering you the opportunity, but you won’t take it. If you don’t take advantage of the opportunity, people reading these comments will likely come to conclude that your assertion the report is vilifying and slanders the State of Israel is impossible to backup with sound legal arguments. It’s beginning to appear that you have no basis whatsoever for asserting the report is slanderous, and that your persistent refusal to prove the assertion using the report’s specific text examples is indeed slanderous of the report’s co-authors – Professor Tilley and Professor Falk.

For the 3rd time, please proceed to your refutations of the report’s text specific examples of slander of the State of Israel. For the 3rd time, thank you.

Sorry, Jerry, you are treading water. The specific example of slander is the accusation of apartheid. I have just shown you why conditions in Israel do not meet the legal or commonly undertood definition of the word. I realize that this isn’t the answer you expected and that you don’t know how to deal with it. That’s your problem. Now answer my questions. You aren’y really fooling anyone with the posturing.

Fred and Aaron received three (3) direct requests – uncensored opportunities – to refute Professor Tilley and Professor Falk’s 27,000 word report concluding the State of Israel is guilty of apartheid, and that in their refutations they identify and forward specific text examples from the report itself. After thousands of words of commentary here, not one single word from the report has appeared.

Note to readers. Jerry has received 3 direct requests to explain how he went about verifying and evaluating a report concerning a country about which he has no direct knowledge . He has also been invited twice to read the Hamas Charter and tell us what he found there and whether he agrees that their ultimate aim is to destroy the State of Israel. He has of course met neither of these simple challenges. I on the other hand explained precisely why Falk’s report is slanderous in language that anyone who knows what apartheid really is will understand. Unfortunately, Jerry himself likes to hide behind a rampart of “spirituality” when his own slanderous remarks are pointed out to him as well as to play at being a lawyer though I assume that he has no legal training and is therefore also unqualified to evaluate a legal argument.

(Edit by Jerry: We strongly suggest people read the report. We continue to offer Fred and Aaron free access on this platform to refute Professor Tilley and Professor Falk’s >27,000 word document utilizing actual text from the report itself, a standard legal defense. It seems clear now they are either unable or unwilling to take advantage of that opportunity. The report was covered by independent and media organizations worldwide, and deals in an in-depth legal manner with the question of apartheid in Israel, in particular as the crime of apartheid is currently interpreted in international law.)

It is utterly incredible that two academic figures, albeit commissioned by a UN body comprised exclusively of Arab countries, could think they could get away with such a hodgepodge of tendentious and confused reasoning and terminology to make the apartheid claim “stick.” and it is not surprising that the UN immediately repudiated the report along with just about everyone else who doesn’t have an anti-Israel agenda. I will not review this document point by point but underscore its two basic fallacies.

The Arab-Israel conflict is a national conflict and insofar as religion is linked to nationalism, overwhelmingly so among Israel’s enemies and far less so in Israel, also a religious conflict. To call it “racial” in order to slip in the apartheid tag is beyond ignorant. In plain English, Jews do not and never have considered the Arabs as belonging to another race, just as the Americans and British did not consider the Germans as belonging to another race, and this is ironically even more pronounced among religious Jews for reasons that anyone familiar with the Hebrew Bible will immediately understand. In Israel, among religious and non-religious Jews, the Arabs are in fact often referred to as the cousins (“benei ha-dodim”). Israel is a Jewish national state in precisely the same way as Turkey is a Turkish national state, with everything this entails, and the Arabs living in Israel are a national minority in precisely the same way as the Kurds living in Turkey are a national minority, and far better off politically, it should be added.

Israel’s occupation of the West Bank is a military occupation in the same way that the Allied occupation of Germany was a military occupation. Military occupations by definition entail separation between the occupying power and the occupied population and two separate legal systems, a military system for occupied nationals and a civil system for occupying nationals, and it makes absolutely no difference in legal terms if the occupying nationals are domiciled in army bases or settlements, irrespective of the legality of these settlements.

The occupied Palestinians have engaged in terrorist activities from the outset of the occupation. All Israeli measures to protect its civilian population are fully justified by any standard of law or common sense, including the closure and blockade of Gaza. Any report that glosses over this terrorism as a factor in how the Palestinians are governed under the occupation is being dishonest, to say the least.

Fred,
Am interested in a response to the (spiritual) idea that all men, women and children belong to the human family and are relatives. Are you and I, Professors Tilley and Falk, Israelis and Palestinians related in such an ultimate manner or not? Pardon the effort to move any discussion we may engage in toward this aspect of human reality, but personally this is the “nuts and bolts”, highly neglected dimension of the situation for Palestinians, Israelis, people of the Mideast region and entire Earth. Mohandes Gandhi wrote a book titled “All Men Are Brothers” and this man believes that is ultimate reality. Fred, do you think Gandhi (and so many other spiritual explorers through history) reflected ultimate truth with that title, and that injecting the consciousness behind that profound concept into all discussions about conflicts can bring positive, agreed upon by all results?

If your approach is so spiritual and humanistic, then why are you uncritically embracing a slanderous report that you are unequipped to verify or evaluate concerning a country of which you have no direct knowledge.

Fred,
That was, sadly, not the constructive response we were hoping for, instead answering sincere questions with a cruel personal attack and lowering the quality of discourse. But alas, such is illustrative of the far more important communications-related problems (in particular, scarce spiritual maturity) associated with the Israel-Palestine issue.

Good. Which means that you do endorse the report as a condemnation of Israel as an apartheid state. Please explain how you went about verifying and evaluating a report concerning a country about which you have no direct knowledge.

I see that you don’t have an answer to the question so you are going to pretend that it was never asked. Well, Jerry, just between us, you can’t call people criminals and then, when you’re challeged and accused of slander, run away and hide behind a veneer of bogus spirituality saying, “Don’t look at me, I’m a saint.” You’re not a saint, Jerry. You’re an Israel hater, and maybe something worse.

Fred,
We responded to the question… Firstly, it takes an extraordinary level of arrogance to label or accuse someone one has never met as being a pretender – in other words a liar or lacking integrity. It fits a pattern, then, to go on and state the other unmet person practices “bogus spirituality”, plus further accusing that person of being an “Israel hater, or maybe something worse.” We deny that assertion and find it most unfortunate. We are sincerely interested in learning, and would greatly appreciate your sharing, a description of your personal worldview and philosophy. Perhaps this would allow us to better understand each other, then with the benefit of that better understanding engage in a good and positive discussion.

We responded to your lengthy original (uncensored) comment Aaron, and await your response.

We held your comment “Here we go again..” linking to a Times of Israel article “Why Theresa May Must Expel Former UN Official Richard Falk for Ant-Semitism” until uncertainty over the site’s safety can be dealt with. Please share the general focus of the article, or the article text, for now.

You are being nonsensical. When you slander a country and are challenged to present the evidence, the worldview and philosophy of whomever challenges you on substantive grounds is irrelevant. You say, Arabs in Israel live like Africans in South Africa. I say, Prove it. You say, What is your worldview and philosophy. You are copping out. When you endorse such slanderous allegations as are found in the report, you had better be ready to put your money where your mouth is.

To be perfectly clear, Jerry: You have never mentioned the State of Israel with anything but the vilest allegations that stink of animosity (“Is it an exact analogy to describe the Israeli apartheid nation with its decades-old criminal, dehumanizing, racist policies toward the Palestinian people as the world’s largest “gated community”? – from another of your posts, not to mention your various comments on Falk’s site). That is why I call you a hater. How do you dare to slander a country you have never seen, whose language you don’t understand and about which you get all your information from second- and third-hand English-language sources. That is the only question that demands an answer. If you wish to say, Because I am a Christian. I will understand that, because Christians have hated, persecuted and murdered Jews for 2000 years. And if you wish to know what my “views” are in the matter, read this:

Fred,
While approving your comment, because unsure about the safety of the website you linked, please explain the article’s content or provide the (relevant parts or in whole) text.

Either Israel is the world’s largest gated community or it isn’t. Does it seem unreasonable, or a “vilest allegation”, to use the gated community analogy when Israel’s dividing wall is there for everyone on Earth to see? Do you think that wall should remain standing or be dismantled, Fred? Slander is a “false’ defamatory spoken statement”. Are you saying that the wall is some sort of mirage or supernatural hologram manifestation, that if one were to stand next to it one’s hand would go through it like it wasn’t there – that the wall is “false”?

How can we square the assertion that (now) the Christians are haters of Israel when it is a total inversion of reality? Good gracious Fred, there are Christians so devoted to Israel who might rather punch me in the face than hear about the state of the Palestinian people.

The wall is there for security, to keep terrorists out, and for no other reason, and it has succeeded fairly well. You should be glad that Israeli women and children are no longer being blown to pieces in buses and restaurants by barbaric Arab terrorists. Where was your voice when the terrorists were murdering Israeli civilians? Do you really not understand why the wall is there?

As for the Christianity – good gracious? Are you unaware of what your church is guilty of with regard to the Jews.” I said “2000 years,” not “(now).” Why do you put the “now” in parentheses – because you know that I’m not talking about “now.”

The site is perfectly safe and you would do well to read the piece and maybe understand yourself and your fellow Christians a little better, particularly the Israel haters.

Fred,
Please provide those parts of the article’s text, or the entire article, for posting here. With regard to the 2,000-year Christian assault on Jews assertion, it was an astonishing and “new” revelation. Why you mentioned it in your previous comment seems irrelevant and highly unusual, unless you’re aware of “barbaric Christian terrorists” that others are not.

“The site is perfectly safe and you would do well to read the piece and maybe understand yourself and your fellow Christians a little better, particularly the Israel haters.” You chastise for using “now” then turn completely around and state in present tense that “Christian Israel haters” exist today, emphasizing the point by saying “you would do well to read the piece and maybe understand yourself and your fellow Christians better…”

The writer is Editor-in-Chief of the 22-volume second edition of the Encyclopaedia Judaica, winner of the 2007 Dartmouth Medal and author of The Other Shore (Aqueous Books, 2011), an epic novel depicting Israeli society at a critical juncture in its recent history.

The recent ADL survey on anti-Semitism around the world (in 102 countries), with its not so startling finding that one out of four people harbors anti-Semitic feelings, has received a great deal of publicity. Among the countries that come off well is the United States, with a 9% anti-Semitism rating. Latin America, on the other hand, shows 27%, Western Europe checks in at 24%, with the United Kingdom at 8% and Greece at 69%, Eastern Europe at 34%, and the Middle East and North Africa, not surprisingly, at 74%.

The survey put 11 questions to the 53,000 participants, concerning stereotyped attitudes toward Jewish loyalty, money, power, influence, behavior, etc. Negative replies to six or more of these indicators established the respondent as anti-Semitic. The survey has already been criticized for the somewhat arbitrary cutoff point of six indicators. Why not five? Why not four?

A more direct approach might have been to ask participants straight out if they had positive, negative or neutral feelings about Jews, though the ADL questionnaire is admittedly more subtle in getting anti-Semites to give themselves away. In any case, the finding that just 9% of Americans are anti-Semitic
Jew haters hate Jews first and then find the reasons to.
is generous to say the least, considering that 26% of Americans believe that the Jews killed Christ and 18% believe that “Jews have too much power in the business world.”

But what non-Jews say about Jews is really not the point. The point is why they say what they say. In this respect the ADL itself does not seem to understand what anti-Semitism is, or is at least representing it in a manner that is liable to give people a false idea about what it is.

Jew hatred is a pathological condition whose causes are to be sought in the mind of the Jew hater rather than in historical circumstances or in the real or imagined actions of the Jews. Circumstances, historical or social, may awaken or exacerbate Jew hatred, but to do so, the hatred must already be there. We kill for this or that immediate reason, but we would not kill if we did not have murderous feelings. Jew haters hate Jews first and then find the reasons to. This is the one basic distinction that has to be made to understand the nature of Jew hatred.

The accusations made against Jews, from Christ killing on down, have therefore been, all through history, not the causes of Jew hatred but the pretexts or rationalizations or vindications for it. Whether such accusations were true or not, whether the Jews really were well poisoners or usurers or Host desecrators or ritual murderers, or “think they are better than other people” or “don’t care what happens to anyone but their own kind,” is entirely irrelevant. The hatred or animosity or aversion felt by Christians toward Jews had nothing to do with what the Jews have done.

Since Jew hatred has historically infested the entire Christian world, it must necessarily have had the same cause everywhere, which, if not the Jews themselves – their crimes or bad character – must lie in the nature of Christianity itself, or in human nature as such, or in a combination of the two.

In the time of the early Church, new Christians did not understand that it was the Jews they were meant to hate until the Church told them to. They would have been happy to hate someone else. It is after all a fact that people incited by the Church to hate Jews hated other people as well, with or without the prompting of the Church.

The hater looks around for someone to hate. The Church gave him the Jew. Admittedly, he might have found the Jew without the help of the Church, just as he found others to hate, but it is the Church as the prime mover that bears the guilt, and therefore it has to be said, without qualification, that the hatred of Jews that the Church brought into the Christian world is responsible for every act of violence ever directed by a Christian against a Jew.

In the early Church, Jew hatred always involved two principal elements: resentment and rivalry. Though the Jews were not active proselytizers like the Christians, their religion nonetheless attracted outsiders and was therefore perceived as competing with Christianity in the business of winning souls. How Christianity responds to rivalry can be seen in the religious wars inspired by the emergence of the Protestant faith. Why the Christian responds so violently to rivalry is once again more a matter of pathology than of ideology.

Nietzsche described Christianity as the religion of resentment par excellence – “a resentment experienced by creatures who, deprived as they are of the proper outlet for action, are forced to find their compensation in an imaginary revenge … the vindictive hatred and revengefulness of the weak” (The Genealogy of Morals). Certainly Christianity attracted the downtrodden, the oppressed and the spat upon, and brought with it great hatred of the strong.

Paul states this very clearly (1 Corinthians 2:27-28):

“But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God has chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

“And base things of the world, and things which are despised, has God chosen, and things which are not, to bring to naught things that are.”

But while this may explain why the Christians hated the Romans, or the rich and the powerful in general, it still does not explain why they hated the Jews or any other spiritual rivals, namely, why they hated those who were as weak as themselves. In fact, even when the Church became strong, the resentment did not abate, for, especially in its strength, it continued to attract the weak.

Why do the weak hate or resent the weak? Some will say because they remind them of their own condition, causing them to hate in others what they hate in themselves. Some will say in order to elevate themselves over and above these others and have something lower than themselves to despise and against which to measure and affirm themselves. Some will say because the others do not acknowledge their superiority, even challenge it and deride it, thus diminishing those who wish to think highly of themselves.

Whatever the cause, it is supremely ironic that Christianity as a religion professing love should have attracted so many followers who were prone to the most vicious kinds of hatred.

The Christian found his strength and identity in his faith, attaching himself to a community and to a system of values and beliefs that gave him his sense of dignity and worth, so that whatever threatened it threatened him as well. Without this faith he had nothing and was nothing. Without it he became what he had always been. Out of this faith he built a great tower and inhabited it as though he were a tower himself, full of righteous pride.

The Jew refused to acknowledge the truth of this faith and thereby shook the foundations of the Christian’s idea of himself and undermined the elaborate structure he had erected to sustain himself and magnify his self-esteem. The Jew stood against him stubbornly maintaining that the truth lay elsewhere and thereby enraged him as any creature is enraged when its sustenance is stolen from out of its mouth and the solid ground on which it stands is pulled out from under its feet.

The Jew stood against the Christian and would not give him the affirmation that he required to elevate himself above the Jew – and the Christian hated him for it.

That affirmation could only be found among other Christians. When the Christian stood alone he remained weak, undistinguished, but when he joined together with the others and became part of a crowd or mob or community looking down at the ‘miserable’ Jews, he felt strong, secure, exalted, and together with the others invented all the reasons in the world why he should continue to hate them.

The Jew, however, would still not acknowledge the primacy of the Christian faith and this gnawed at the Christian soul, it made the Christian’s stomach churn and brought the heat to his face, it reminded him of who and what he was, but he did not understand his own pathology and continued to believe his own lies.

Many observers have understood the need of the mediocre to place themselves above a despised group. In conventional sociological terms this is called racism or bigotry. In the Christian world it was known as truth.

The ADL survey links anti-Semitism to stereotyped views of the Jews, but these are the result of anti-Semitism and not the cause of it. It would be a mistake to think of anti-Semitism as the product of erroneous ideas about the Jews. It is the product of sick minds.

****

(Note-edit by Jerry: Fred wrote the following two sentences in a separate, stand-alone comment after posting his article. One might interpret these short sentences as a form of public relations repair, as the article could become perceived by the Christian community in America and other nations as (ironically) anti-Christian, Christian-hating, Christian-bashing, etc.)

Of course there are still Christian Jew haters and Israel haters. It is institutional Christianity that has backed away from it.

Fred,
First, is this your writing? A few words stood out, upon which we request sincere elaboration:

1.) ” The Jew stood against him (the Christian) stubbornly maintaining that the truth lay elsewhere..” Could you please expound on what is meant by “elsewhere” in this instance.

2.) “Many observers have understood the need of the mediocre to place themselves above a despised group…” If not misinterpreting, this sentence describes an anti-semitic condition where the mediocre (Christians) need to act in ways which mirror “superiority complex” to overcome their present, but unacknowledged mediocrity. Why was the descriptive word “mediocre” chosen for insertion, by yourself if the author – or your best guess if not, in this sentence?

Would mediocre describe the progressive Rabbi Michael Lerner, Dr. Cornel West, Martin Luther King Jr, or Jesus Christ? How do you perceive those men, and other Christian women and men through history in their category?

Isn’t it clear to you what kind of individual I am describing? Who but someone with this inferiority complex and complete moral debasement requires someone to lord it over, persecute, revile, whether blacks, Asians, Jews, etc. Do you really not understand what bigotry is and where it comes from?

I am writing about Christian antisemites, not decent Christians. Isn’t that clear to you? According to the ADL survey this amounts to around 1 in 4 today. In medieval and earlier modern times it was unfortunately much higher if not nearly umiversal among Christians.

Fred,
Your 5-word evasion of our request to expound (state in detail) why you wrote and implied “The Truth” is in the Jewish Torah not the Christian Bible, and that is what generates anti-semitism and hate among Christians towards Jews, is far less than we were hoping for. Please elaborate on why you believe the Torah contains that “elsewhere truth”. It’s a very simple request, Fred, and, as you heavily base your article narrative or thesis on that “truth” aspect, it is not “naive” for me to ask for a fundamental clarification.

It seems now more understandable why you hesitated in bringing your article here, and why now you are attempting to minimize the negative repercussions when readers visit this comment thread. Nowhere in the article do you make a distinction between Christian antisemites and decent Christians, nor once mention someone like Martin Luther King, Dr. West or Jesus Christ, much less write about their excellent, moral and compassionate human qualities. Nowhere in the writing do say anything like, “Not all Christians are mediocre… There are many fine and good Christian men and women..” – nothing of the sort. Your article lumps all Christians together as mediocre and haters, weak, and utterly deficient of spiritual truth.

Engaging in a discussion here on deep spiritual matters is not the reason you entered your 1st comment, but to “push buttons” with the aim of angering the targeted person to the point of ad-hominem response attacks. It’s sad, really.

You are being intentionally obtuse. The Church wanted believing Jews to renounce their faith and accept Christ as their savior. The Jews refused to do so, declaring that Christianity is a false doctrine, which enraged the Church and its followers. That is what I am saying. I am not involving myself in a debate about the truth of various religious doctrines. You have a serious problem understanding plain English, or perhaps don’t wish to so that you can somehow get in the last word.

Likewise, it would take a very forced reading of what I have written about antisemites to conclude that I am attacking Christians who are not antisemites. I am writing explicity about “Jew haters” and “Jew hatred.” If I was writing about rotten apples, would it be necessary to declare that I am not writing about apples that are not rotten? You seem desperate to squeeze some tortured misreading out of what I have written in order to get in the last word. And please don’t pretend that we are engaging in a discussion on “deep spiritual matters.” W are engaing in a discussion which you initiated by endorsing a report that vilifies and slanders the State of Israel.

Fred,
Come on Fred… you can do it brother! You can explain how you came to believe Christianity is a false doctrine, the real truth is found “elsewhere in the Torah, and perhaps share the names of men and women Christians you see as “good apples”, along with the criterion you use to categorize them as “good”. Isn’t that precisely what is necessary for building greater understanding between people and to reduce the phenomenon of Christians hating Jews? You wrote the article, not me.

“You have a serious problem understanding plain English, or perhaps don’t wish to so that you can somehow get in the last word… You seem desperate to squeeze some tortured misreading out of what I have written in order to get in the last word…” Fred, to say such things after all that’s been said in this discussion is disappointing and unfortunate. The issue of Israel-Palestine cannot be perceived as anything other than one involving “deep spiritual matters”, including the moral and ethical aspects and foundations of established international law. To be honest Fred, one doesn’t envy you for the dizzying amount of work ahead if you decide to compile a serious refutation of what is contained in Professor Tilley and Professor Falk’s report – the more than 25,000 word document.

Excuse use of the term “cross to bear”, but taking on that report, if you decide to attempt a refuting defense or legal response of similar length (>25,000 words), will be identical to attempting the ascent of one very steep, public relations disastrous, and ultimately impossible to climb international law mountain. The report is powerful because it speaks the truth.

As one who embraces the philosophy behind the title of Gandhi’s book “All Men Are Brothers”… brother don’t waste your energy by attempting to dissuade people from becoming aware of the truth and power in that historic landmark report. Such an ill-advised attempt will eat you alive. Most importantly in the context of you and I as brothers, whether you believe we are in ultimate reality brothers and related or not, is the harm to your spirit or soul which will manifest as a consequence of fighting the truth.

If you are willing to continue this discussion, my brother, we are willing also. With regard to getting in the “last word” the genesis of this talk is the report which concludes the State of Israel is guilty of the international crime of apartheid. Fred, you assert that the legal arguments in the document “vilifies and slanders the State of Israel”. Please begin where you’d like with examples from the actual report’s text where you perceive vilification and slanderous wording, instead of clear, neutral legal argument. Thank you.

Fred,
That wasn’t from your essay, but from your latest comment, where you wrote:

“You are being intentionally obtuse. The Church wanted believing Jews to renounce their faith and accept Christ as their savior. The Jews refused to do so, declaring that Christianity is a false doctrine, which enraged the Church and its followers. That is what I am saying. I am not involving myself in a debate about the truth of various religious doctrines. You have a serious problem understanding plain English, or perhaps don’t wish to so that you can somehow get in the last word.”

Yes, of course. That is exactly what the Jews said when the Christians tried to convert them. I am stating this as an objective fact. How do you conclude from this that I am expressing a personal opinion about the truth or falsemess of anyone’s beliefs? There is something seriously wrong with how you construe things.

Fred,
Again…
The name of this WordPress platform is “The Oneness of Humanity”. If a similar situation as that existent in Israel-Palestine were present in any other nation or region on Earth our response would be the same – in other words, situations where awareness of ultimate reality, the oneness of humanity, is missing.

Now would seem a propitious point to move to the report, past any less important matters, and seek clarification. After noticing Professor Falk had blocked your commentary on his internet platform, we shall allow you to bring your report text specific examples of vilification and slander of the State of Israel. Please proceed in that endeavor, starting with those portions of the report’s text that you wish to highlight. Thank you.

I myself am working on replying to his earlier challenges of me as if they hadn’t already been demonstrated ad infinitum in the court of public opinion.
I am convinced I will be equally spun.
I have to give him credit though.
He is certainly more open and honest then Falk (Jerry, don’t take to my referencing you in the 3rd person as an insult..I respect you regardless).

Hopefully I will find time over the weekend. I just got back from Memphis.

Aaron,
No more spinning, brother… This is far too important an issue. I’ll make the same request of you as that made of Fred. Begin now in this comment thread to identify specific language in Professor Tilley and Professor Falk’s report which are slanderous or vilifying of the State of Israel or otherwise legally deficient from the standpoint of established international law.

Welcome

World Peace Is Possible

"The first peace, which is most important, is that which is found within the souls of men when they realize their relationship, their oneness with the universe and all its powers, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells the Great Spirit, and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us." -BLACK ELK

Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms.. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.

This blog is devoted to legal, historical and human rights matters, in which issues of general concern are addressed freely and spontaneously. It is intended to further an informal exchange of views in the democratic spirit of freedom of opinion and respect for the opinions of others, in an effort to understand rather than condemn, to propose constructive solutions rather than grandstand. The perspective is both from inside and outside the box and the added value lies more in the questions than in the answers.